Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: a handbook for Supervisors

‘Together we built a bridge that I could cross’:
‘hands-on’ supervision
Mei’s choice of words to describe the outcome of her relationship with her
second supervisor, as the joint construction of a bridge she felt able to cross,
epitomizes the positive qualities of a successful supervisory relationship
(Aspland 1999: 34). The study of supervisory practice referred to at the
beginning of this chapter noted that ‘hands-on’ supervision was associated
with a greater number of completions in minimum time (Sinclair 2005).
The practices of ‘hands-on’ supervisors would seem particularly appropriate
for assisting second-language students and are explicitly referred to as
essential in a number of studies of second-language thesis and dissertation
writers (e.g. Belcher 1994; Braine 2002; Swales 2004). Supervisors need
not feel they are engaging in excessive ‘handholding’; at the heart of super-
vision is a relationship that must be negotiated. The second-language
student and the supervisor can both benefit from an explicit conversation
about mutual expectations, roles and responsibilities. The key characteris-
tics of hands-on supervision are described below.
For all students, the first year is seen as vital for the establishment of this
relationship. For the supervisor of the second-language student, hands-on
engagement is imperative. The production of text is also essential from the
beginning as it allows for early identification of problem areas in comprehen-
sion and writing, and candidates will benefit from regular and timely
feedback. Hands-on supervisors provide more input earlier in the candidature
and less input later. They constantly encourage and assist candidates to:

---

Working with second-language speakers of English
37
●
draft thesis text;
●
publish and present their research in journals and at conferences;
●
go through a number of iterations of thesis and publication drafts.
(Sinclair 2005)
Hands-on supervisors establish ‘consistent and viable relationships’ based on
the ‘achievement of early and lasting agreement between supervisor’s and can-
didate’s expectations of each other’ (Sinclair 2005: vii). These include
negotiating a firm timetable for completion, particularly in relation to:
●
available support and project logistics;
●
institutional quality checks such as reviews;
●
project-specific milestones such as the production of thesis text;
●
the presentation and publication of conference and journal papers.
In other words, the relationship moves from being one of informal comrade-
ship to a more professionalized one in which mutual expectations are clearly
articulated without necessarily losing the dimensions of trust which are also
important. Linguistic and cultural issues referred to earlier suggest that the
onus to initiate and follow through with such discussion lies clearly with the
supervisor at the commencement of study. Adams and Cargill (2003) report
on a supervisor who tries to avoid potential miscommunication by asking stu-
dents to email her an outline of the main issues discussed and actions agreed
on by both parties after their meetings. They also suggest that supervisors get
to know their students personally so that they can be aware of daily life issues
that may affect the students’ research, while noting that this strategy is not
viewed favourably by all supervisors.